Performance-Based Design Workshop · 2019-05-06 · Regional Motor Vehicle Network 3. Regional Transit Network 4. Regional Freight Network 5. ... •place-making/public space •green

Performance-Based Design WorkshopApril 22, 2019

2

• Welcome and Introductions

• Overview from Metro

• Overview of Performance-Based Design and Decision-Making Framework

• Interactive Session

• Closing Remarks

Workshop Outline

3

Welcome and Introductions

4

Updating design guidance for regional streets and trailsProjects funded with regional funds must use the guidelines and performance-based planning framework

5

Street design implements 2040 Growth Concept

6

Regional multimodal transportation facilities and services including the following:

1. Regional System Design

2. Regional Motor Vehicle Network

3. Regional Transit Network

4. Regional Freight Network

5. Regional Bicycle Network

6. Regional Pedestrian Network

7. Regional System Management and Operations/ Demand Management

Regional transportation system components

7

Regional street design policy classificationsDifferent designs apply to different classifications

Regional street design classifications dictate how throughways and arterials in the RTP should be designed:•number of lanes•priority functions•design speed•separation of modes•flex-zone uses•place-making/public space•green infrastructure

8

Freeway and highway design classifications emphasize long-distance motor-vehicle and high-capacity transit travel, connect major activity centers and are separated from the surrounding land use. Bicycle and pedestrian travel are provided on separate facilities. Freeways are completely grade separated, while highways have some at-grade access and turns.

Freeway and highway design classifications

Shaded areas optional

based on available width

9

Regional and community boulevard classifications are applied to roadways within 2040 centers, station communities and to main streets. Boulevards serve major centers of urban activity and emphasize access and mobility for public transportation and people walking and bicycling.

Regional and community boulevard design

classifications



10

Regional and community street classifications are applied to transit corridors, main streets, industrial and employment areas and neighborhoods with designs that integrate all modes of travel and provide accessible and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation travel.

Regional and community streetdesign classifications



11

Industrial street classifications are applied to roadways that serve intermodal facilities such as airports, and to roadways in industrial and employment areas. Designs primarily serve freight mobility and access while integrating multi-modal travel and access to transit.

Industrial street design classification



12

• Recent AASHTO Updates

• Metro Designing Livable Streets & Trails Guide

• Making Informed Multimodal Decisions

• Performance-Based Design Project Example

Overview of Performance-Based Design

13

• Everyone is talking about it

• AASHTO, FHWA, ITE, NACTO, NCHRP, State DOT

• What does it really mean?

• How do you implement it?

What is Performance-Based Design?

14

“ A principles-based approach that looks at the outcomes of design decisions as the primary measure of design effectiveness.”

NCHRP Report 785, Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

Performance-Based Design

15


“ A principles-based approach that looks at the outcomes of design decisions as the primary measure of design effectiveness.”

NCHRP Report 785, Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

16


1. Identify desired project outcomes

2. Establish design decisions

3. Evaluating the performance

4. Iterating and refining the design

5. Assessing the financial feasibility

6. Selecting a preferred alternative that aligns with the desired outcomes

17

National trends

2019Metro

Designing Livable

Streets & Trails Guide

2014NCHRP Report 785: Performance-based

Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways & Streets

2016AASHTO Standing

Committee on Highways

Resolution

2018NCHRP

Report 855

2018AASHTO Green

Book, 7th

Edition

2019Green

Book, 8th

Edition visioning complete

First nationwide best practices guide

introduced

Refinement of best practicesLand use considerations

Official adoption by industry leaders

MORE FLEXIBILE, MULTIMODAL DESIGN PRACTICES

Metro adopts Performance-Based Design

18

• AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH) Resolution

• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book)

• 2018 7th Edition

• 2019 8th Edition Visioning and Roadmap

Recent AASHTO Trends

19

Geometric design should be flexible and performance-based to promote safe and efficient multimodal planning and design.

- Approved May 25, 2016

AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH) Resolution

20

“. . . robustly-researched guidance is needed on how best to incorporate other modes of travel . . .”

“AASHTO should provide guidance to state DOTs and other users of the Green Book regarding flexibility in design”


21

“ . . .guidance should assist in educating engineers and designers on the flexibility. . .”

“ . . .guidance should address designing in and for a multi-modal transportation system”


22

• Emphasizes design flexibility and performance-based design

• Increased multimodal emphasis

• New context classifications

Key Themes of Green Book 7th Edition

23

Project Types– NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

– RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

– PROJECTS ON EXISTING ROADS

23


24

Based on NCHRP Report 855

Two Rural: Rural and Rural Town

Three Urban: Urban, Urban Core and Suburban


24

25

NCHRP Report 855 – An Expanded Functional

Classification System for Highways and Streets

26

NCHRP Report 855 – An Expanded Functional

Classification System for Highways and Streets

27

Metro’s Land Use and Transportation Transect

28

• NCHRP 20-07, Task 423 “Planning for a Comprehensive Update and Restructuring of AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”

– Green Book 8 (GB8) Vision

– Potential GB8 Document Framework

– Roadmap for Implementation

Let’s start planning for Green Book 8

29

• What we considered– Input from Outreach Meetings

• Suggested documents and resources

• Detailed guidance, suggested approaches, GB8 considerations

– Explicit reference documents• NCHRP Reports 785, 839, 855 etc.

• AASHTO A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design

• Many others

29

Green Book 8 Visioning and Roadmap

30


• Vision– Integrating Planning and Design

– Understanding the Project Development Process

– Document Framework and Design Model

31


• GB8 Document Framework– Introduction Chapters

– Performance-Based Design Evaluations

• Design Model

• Performance-Based Design Process Framework

– Roadway Planning and Geometric Design

– Facility Type

• Roadmap for Implementation– Activities to advance the GB8 Vision

– Identifying partnerships and early adopters

32

Metro’s Designing Livable Streets & Trails Guide

33

• Design Elements Support Functions to Achieve Outcomes

• Multidiscipline project teams improve decision-making

• A performance-based design decision-making framework contributes to systemwide networks and regional outcomes.

• It starts with a well-defined project need and clear objectives.

Metro Designing Livable Streets & Trails Guide

34

1. Purpose and how to use the guidelines

2. Policy framework and desired outcomes

3. Design functions and classifications

4. Design elements, recommendations, considerations

5. Visualizations, street illustrations

6. Performance-based decision making framework

What is in the design guidelines?

35

Connecting to the land use

36

Design decisions are guided by desired policy outcomes/design principles

37

With performance-based design, design elements support street functions to achieve desired outcomes

38

Metro Designing Livable Streets & Trails Guide

39

• Reconstructing an existing auto-oriented urban arterial

– Complete street attributes

– Economic revitalization

• Objectives:

– Accommodating multiple modes;

– Illustrating tradeoffs between modes; and

– Consider the constrained physical environment.

Project Example to Illustrate Steps: Cascade Avenue

40

Step 1: Affirm Context and Policy Direction

– Verify that the design is staying true to:

• existing systemwide plans

• adopted policies

• stakeholder engagement

• decisions made in the funding process.

Metro’s Performance-Based Design Decision-Making Framework

41

• Target audience– Business community stakeholders

– Transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists

– Local residents and existing motorists

• Intent of the Study– Improve the road user experience

– Provide access to road users not previously served

– Enhance the economic vitality and activity of the street

Cascade AvenueStep 1: Affirm Context and Policy Direction

• Performance Measures – Multimodal Level of Service

(MMLOS)

– Crash frequency and conflict points

– Type and presence of facilities and transit service characteristics

– Average travel time

42

Step 2: Assess Existing Conditions and Confirm Functions

– Preparation for the development and evaluation of project alternatives in Steps 3 and 4.

– Focused on:

• collecting existing conditions information

• identifying functions currently served

• determining which functions should be served


43

• Cascade Avenue– Urban arterial– North-south connection between the downtown and university– AADT volume 22,000 vehicles per day – Three different fixed transit routes - 45% of riders within the City– Frequently used by bicyclists – Posted speed on Cascade Avenue is 35 mph

Alternative 1 – Existing Conditions

Cascade Avenue Step 2: Assess Existing Conditions and Confirm Functions

44

• Step 3: Develop Alternatives

– Initiate the development of design alternatives to address the project need, contribute to systemwide outcomes and serve the functions confirmed in Step 2.

– Guidance considers:

• Preferred condition

• Typical condition

• Not a typical/preferred condition


45

• Consider various elements (e.g., lane width)


Regional Design

Classifications<

10 f

oo

t la

ne

s

10 f

oo

t la

ne

s

11 f

oo

t la

ne

s

12 f

oo

t la

ne

s

>12 f

oo

t la

ne

s

Two

-wa

y le

ft-t

urn

lan

es

Turn

la

ne

s a

t

inte

rse

ctio

ns

Tra

nsi

t o

r Bu

sin

ess

Ac

ce

ss/T

ran

sit

Lan

es

Freeways

Highways

Regional Boulevard

Community Boulevard

Regional Street

Community Street

Industrial Street

Preferred condition

Typical condition

Not a typical/preferred condition

Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes

46

• Consider various elements (e.g., bicycle facility)


Regional Design

Classifications

Sh

are

d s

tre

et/

sha

red

la

ne

s*

Sta

nd

ard

6' b

ike

lan

e*

Bu

ffe

red

bik

e

lan

e

Se

pa

rate

d B

ike

Lan

es

(on

e-w

ay)

Se

pa

rate

d B

ike

Lan

es

(tw

o-w

ay)

Mu

lti-u

se p

ath

(sh

are

d

alig

nm

en

t)

Pa

ralle

l fa

cili

ty

(pa

th o

r st

ree

t)

Freeways

Highways

Regional Boulevard

Community Boulevard

Regional Street

Community Street

Industrial Street

Preferred condition

Potential condition

Not a preferred condition

Bicycle Facility

47

• Consider various elements (e.g., transit priority treatment)


Regional Design

Classifications

Exc

lusi

ve

Tra

nsi

twa

ys

Tra

nsi

t-o

nly

Lan

es

Pe

ak-H

ou

r

Tra

nsi

t-o

nly

Lan

es

Tra

nsi

t

Ap

pro

ac

h

Lan

e

Qu

eu

e J

um

ps

Tra

nsi

t Sig

na

l

Prio

rity

Sig

na

l

Pro

gre

ssio

n

Freeways

Highways

Regional Boulevard

Community Boulevard

Regional Street

Community Street

Industrial Street

Preferred condition

Potential condition

Not a preferred condition

Transit Priority Treatment

48

• Cross-sectional elements likely to influence the performance measures – Lane width

– Number of automobile through lanes

– Bicycle facility presence and type

– Sidewalk width

– Landscaped buffer between sidewalk and travel lanes

– On-street parking

– Bus only lanes

– Central roadway median

Cascade AvenueStep 3: Develop Alternatives

49

• Common Elements– More pedestrian space

– Removal of on-street parking

• Other tradeoffs considered– Allocating lanes for specific modes – Transit-only lane

– Providing bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks for pedestrians

– Including a central landscaped median

Cascade AvenuePotential Solutions – Solution Development

50

Cascade AvenuePotential Solutions

Alternative 1 – Existing Conditions

Alternative 2 – Transit Oriented

51

Alternative 3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Oriented

Alternative 4 – Hybrid of Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle

Cascade AvenuePotential Solutions

52

• Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives

– Use a performance-based analysis to evaluate the alternatives developed in Step 3 and using the performance measures selected in Step 2.


53

• Common considerations across the alternatives– Within the existing 82 feet of right-of-way width– Require changing the existing curb locations– Reduce the capacity for automobiles– Remove on-street parking– Increase sidewalk width for pedestrians

Cascade Avenue Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives (Potential Solution – Primary Alternative Evaluation)

54

• Differentiating factors across the alternatives – Amount of space designated for bicyclists– Presence of a central median– Presence of a physical buffer for pedestrians and

bicyclists from autos– Type of space allocated for transit vehicles

Cascade Avenue Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives (Potential Solution – Primary Alternative Evaluation)

55

• Estimating Performance

– Evaluation resources• Highway Safety Manual

• Highway Capacity Manual

• Qualitative Assessment

55Cascade AvenueEvaluation and Selection

56

Performance Evaluation Results

Alternative Safety Mobility: Average Travel Time (min)

Reliability: Variation in Travel Time Accessibility

Quality of Service: MMLOS

#1 – Existing Condition

Pedestrian Low - - Low DBicycle Low - - Low FTransit Low 4.43 3.68 to 5.26 Moderate DAuto Low 2.67 2.42 to 3.17 High A

#2 – Transit OrientedPedestrian High - - Moderate C

Bicycle Moderate - - Moderate ETransit High 4.40 3.68 to 4.76 High BAuto High 3.43 3.35 to 3.60 Low C

#3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Oriented

Pedestrian High - - High BBicycle High - - High CTransit High 4.80 3.97 to 6.00 Moderate DAuto High 4.80 3.80 to 6.10 Low D

#4 – Hybrid of Transit, Bicycle and PedestrianPedestrian Low - - Moderate C

Bicycle Moderate - - Moderate DTransit Moderate 4.38 3.65 to 4.78 High BAuto Low 3.45 3.32 to 3.56 Low C

Cascade AvenueEvaluation and Selection

57

• Incorporating Financial Feasibility

– Identify the planning level cost of each alternative

Alternative Cost per Mile

Alternative #1 – Existing Condition $0

Alternative #2 – Transit Oriented $1.4 million

Alternative #3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Oriented $1.6 million

Alternative #4 – Hybrid of Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian $1.0 million

Cascade AvenueEvaluation and Selection

58

• Step 5: Refine Design Decisions

– Provides guidance on how to refine design decisions for one or more alternatives to lead to selection and development of a preferred design concept in Step 6.

– Draw on the alternatives evaluation from Step 4 to further refine the design of one or more alternative.


59

Cascade AvenueStep 5: Refine Design DecisionsContinue to refine alternatives

Alternative 2 – Transit

Oriented

Alternative 3 – Bicycle

and Pedestrian

Oriented

Alternative 4 – Hybrid of

Transit, Pedestrian and

Bicycle

60

• Step 6: Decide on Preferred Design Concept

– Decide which design concept alternative to move forward.

– Should reflect a performance-based approach to serving the prioritized functions and contributing to systemwide outcomes.


61

• City and project stakeholders - Alternative 2 – Provides improved safety, reliability, access, and quality of service for transit riders,

pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Local business community - Alternative 3– City plans to integrate Alternative 3 attributes into Alternative 2

• Landscaping along the sidewalks • Characteristics to better serve bicyclists

Alternative 2 – Transit Oriented

Cascade AvenueStep 6: Decide on Preferred Design Concept

62

• Step 7: Final Design

– Developed based on the preferred design concept.

– The final design and implementation should serve the identified functions, contribute to systemwide networks and further regional

outcomes.


63

• Step 8: Construct, Operate, Maintain, and Evaluate

– The project is constructed and becomes part of the transportation system.

– Operations and maintenance are key aspects of ensuring that the street serves the intended functions.

– A performance evaluation and ongoing monitoring following construction can help

contribute to best practices for future projects.


64

Break

65

• Overview of Project

• Handouts

• Interactive discussion

• Facilitators will be roaming if you have questions

• Designate a speaker to present to larger group

• Take notes and address a list of questions

• Facilitated Group Discussion

• Provide feedback to larger group

• Close out

Interactive Discussion

Now it’s your turn!

Interactive SessionNE 102nd Avenue Corridor

April 22, 2019

67

• Primary:

– Reduce deadly and serious injury crashes for all people, using all modes

• Secondary:

– Slow motor vehicle operating speeds

– Provide safe access and crossings for people riding bicycles and walking and taking transit

Project Purpose

102nd Avenue Safety Project

68

• City of Maywood Park– City jurisdiction over half of 102nd, Fremont to

Prescott

• ODOT– Critical project area at Sandy Blvd is owned by ODOT

• Structure over I-84– Owned by ODOT

– Maintained by PBOT

Roadway Jurisdiction Coordination

102nd Avenue Corridor

Corridor length: 1.75 miles

Speed limit : 35 mph

PBOT Study Area


102nd Avenue Cross-Section

existing crossing meets standards

existing crossing does not meet standards

existing signal

Existing Conditions


537

159

153

Crash Severity

Injury "A" (Severe) Injury "B"

Injury "C" Property Damage Only

Total Crashes: 354

Pedestrian Crashes: 9

Bicycle Crashes: 9

102nd Avenue Crash History—Corridor-wide


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Reckless Inattention Too Fast ImproperTurn

Failure toAvoid Vehicle

Ahead

ImproperLane Change

Other DisregardedSignal or

TrafficControl

Too Close Failure toYield

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Primary Crash Cause

CLICK TO EDIT MASTER TITLE STYLE102nd Avenue Safety Project

Crashes by intersection


Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Sandy Prescott Fremont Weidler Halsey

Bikes

Pedestrians


Volumes of PM Peak Hour Users: Bicyclists & Pedestrians

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Ve

hic

les

pe

r H

ou

r

NE Sacramento Street Daily Volume Profile

Northbound

Southbound

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Ve

hic

les

pe

r H

ou

r

NE Shaver Street Daily Volume Profile

Northbound

Southbound


Volumes of Daily Users: Motorists

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39-41 42-44 45-47 48-50 51-53 54-56 57-59

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les

in O

ne

Day

Speed in MPH

Posted Speed: 35 mph

Average Speed: 36 mph

85th Percentile Speed: 40 mph

% Above Speed Limit: 55.2%

% 10mph Over: 2.2%


Speed limit

Speeds and Volumes at Sacramento

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39-41 42-44 45-47 48-50 51-53 54-56 57-59 60-999

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les

in O

ne

Day

Speed in MPH

Posted Speed: 35 mph

Average Speed: 37 mph

85th Percentile Speed: 42 mph

% Above Speed Limit: 63.1%

% 10mph Over: 5.2%


Speed limit

Speeds and Volumes at Shaver

What would you do?NE 102nd Avenue Corridor

81

• Clarify desired project outcomes– Who are you trying to serve? – What are you trying to achieve?

• Consider the tradeoffs– What are the options? And compromises?

• Develop a Cross Section– How would you allocate the space?

• Consider documentation needs– Did you document your design decisions?

Small Group Work Session

Small Group Debrief

Share your ideas!NE 102nd Avenue Corridor

Closing Remarks

Questions?NE 102nd Avenue Corridor

Performance-Based Design Workshop · 2019-05-06 · Regional Motor Vehicle Network 3. Regional Transit Network 4. Regional Freight Network 5. ... •place-making/public space •green

Documents